masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Flamewar Bans Policy.
*'Note';This is not a voting policy, this is just to help me get my thoughts out. So heres the deal, I still want to implement this policy, but whenever I try to people say it is not clear enough or have problems with certain elements of it, so I am going to try to use this forum to try to answer peoples concerns and to adapt the policy before I attempt to create another policy forum (and I'm not even sure if I will). Here is how the policy stands in its current form; "Description of Policy: If implemented, this policy will give administrators the rights to ban users over flamewars. The following criteria must all be met for something to be considered a flamewar and for a warning to be issued. *The debate must include at least one argumentative party, only one example needs to be met for a party to be considered argumentative. The below examples qualify as argumentative. ::-The party(ies) is insulting another user in such a way it can be taken no other way but as an insult. ::-The party(ies) is refusing to drop the debate even after the writer of the blog or creator of the forum have clearly expressed the desire to. ::-The party(ies) is consistently (more than two times) bringing up politics and religion in the debate that has nothing to do with them, and after another user had requested them to stop. *There must be at least twenty posts related to the flamewar on the same thread, they don't necessarily have to be part of the same comment string. Users are still aloud to comment on the topic of the blog, they are just not aloud to post comments trying to continue the flamewar. *3 users who are uninvolved must report is to an administrator. If the all of the above criteria are met, warnings will be issued to all parties involved and on the discussion thread as well. Anyone who acts argumentative (as defined above) in response to the debate after the warning has been issued will be banned, however normal and civil comments related to the debate will still be aloud." So, any thoughts, ideas, concerns?--Legionwrex (talk) 21:43, September 1, 2012 (UTC) As I said once before, I'm unsure as to how a flamewar should be defined. I think there may be a way around my concern that individual users may attempt to use this policy to get their "enemies" banned. In addition to the conditions already outlined, state that at least three users uninvolved in the conflict must report it to administrators for the conflict to be designated a flamewar. Arbington (talk) 22:36, September 1, 2012 (UTC) :I added your little suggestion, as to the matter of users banning there enemies, that would be very hard to do, as not that person would have to all-out ignore the warnings and continue to be rude for a ban to happen.--Legionwrex (talk) 22:42, September 1, 2012 (UTC) So no one is interested in commenting on this?--Legionwrex (talk) 16:49, September 2, 2012 (UTC) I'm not totally convinced that I support the language policy, but I do support this policy. Flamewars have been a big issue over the past few months, reflect badly on all of us, and are generally unpleasant to look at. You've still got my vote. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 17:03, September 2, 2012 (UTC) :Thank you, thats nice to know. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on a way to improve the policy.--Legionwrex (talk) 17:09, September 2, 2012 (UTC) The new policy seems fair, and I believe it would serve to improve the community. I've noticed that some users who have been guilty of flaming in the past have been notably absent over the past several months - whether it's from the enforcement of this policy, or just the threat of it discouraging their return. Two thumbs up! --Spirasys (talk) 18:19, November 30, 2012 (UTC) :The community doesn't deserve this policy. Let them have their stupid flamewars.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:22, November 30, 2012 (UTC) ::What caused that? This community has its share of faults, but it can at least serve the purpose of a wiki. Whenever i go to the Deadrising wiki, my eyes bleed. Frankly, if this was opened for voting, its recieve overwhelming support. BeoW0lfe (talk) 18:27, November 30, 2012 (UTC) :::What caused that was pure aggravation with this community in the past months. This policy has already been open for vote...twice. Both times, it was rejected. If the community wants flamewars, let them.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:32, November 30, 2012 (UTC) ::::I had no idea. Probably because i worked at a summer camp this year. I missed several months. Im sorry about that. BeoW0lfe (talk) 18:37, November 30, 2012 (UTC)